$9 Trillion in debt! WHO YOU GONNA BLAME?

Read the title of my post as a spoof on the whole Ghostbusters song – the good one from back then, not the idiotic PC reboot that Hollywood douched us with last year – because it is appropriate. The other day another old democrat crone was asked for an explanation of why the country accumulated $9 trillion plus dollars in debt with absolutely nothing to show for it (a lot of vote buying there and Hillary still lost), and Pelosi, in her grandeur, blamed Boosh. I am starting to think Boosh might be some kind of inhumane super fiend, because the guy can do everything impossible.

Let’s all sign it, baby: If the left is called out on something bad, who ya gonna blame? “George BOOSH”! Catchy…

Here we go:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi blamed former President George W. Bush and the Republicans on Friday for the more than $9 trillion that has been added to the national debt under President Obama’s watch.

Pelosi argued that under Obama, the annual budget deficit, which contributes to the national debt, has been reduced dramatically, and said that without Obama’s work, the national debt would be even higher. She also mostly blamed Bush for not paying for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That same old tired trope again. Obama was great for the economy! Boosh’s Wars! This crap has to be because Pelosi knows for a fact that it was Boosh that bombed the twin towers. She must also think (or want everyone to believe) that it was Boosh whom unilaterally decided to invade Iraq. Thusly, poor godsend Obama struggled to end those evil wars, by losing them, and only managed to start conflicts all over the place – because of Boosh’s mind control, according to Pelosi (or was that all because of the evil Noble Peace Prize whispering in his ear?) – destabilizing the ME and the world in the process, had to spend all that money. It could never be that congress, mostly when it was totally controlled by democrats, felt obligated – probably because of Boosh’s evil super powers, again – to spend trillions more than the broken economy the democrats left us with after their social justice home-loan lending schemes imploded, so they could engage in buying votes, enriching special interests, and fattening donkey campaign coffers.

“When President Obama stood on the steps on the Capitol eight years from next week, the [budget] deficit was $1.4 trillion — one year deficit,” she said. “It’s reduced by 70 percent in his administration. Much of the increase in the national debt that has occurred from this time still springs from two unpaid-for wars, cost that we owe our veterans following that, giveaways that they gave to the pharmaceutical industry, and the high-end tax cuts that have carried forward without any job production. Absent the work of President Obama, this national debt would be even higher.”

Pelosi has some gall. Let me point out that $1.4 trillion dollar deficit was done by the congress she ran after the 2006 election, which remind everyone overrode evil Boosh to spend that money. Those of us that understand who decides how tax payer money gets spent, and who can sign for it or veto it, that is, if they can avoid that congressional override. Based on her own words, we are left basically connecting her accusations of that money being given to fat cats, with her. But somehow it still is Boosh’s fault they did that. Then you got this:

Pelosi noted the work done by former President Bill Clinton to balance the budget or leave a surplus.

You mean the work done by Newt Gingrich, thrice before it stuck? Gingrich dragged the smarter Clinton kicking and screaming away from the leftward turn his people and that crime syndicate capo he married for political convenience had been driving us for the first 2 years of his administration, and dismantled a lot of the horribly costly and wasteful welfare state. I wonder how that expensive welfare state fared under Obama, and if that coupled with the depressing and miserable Obama economy might have more to do with?

And then we have the other shoe about to drop: Obamacare. A monster that is poised to bankrupt America, if it is not slain soon. I bet Pelosi would like us to believe that was also Boosh’s fault even though not a single republican voted for this monstrosity and Boosh was on his ranch in Texas clearing brush. This is the Obama legacy, but the tools want you to believe someone else is responsible for 8 years of amateur hour.

Lets all sing it now: If you are a democrat, and you get called out on being crooks, who ya gonna blame? “George BOOSH”! If someone points out, you fucked America over good, who ya gonna blame? “George BOOSH”!

Catchy indeed. That Boosh guy is the most powerful villain in human history I tell you..

I hope he gets elected just for this

Just so we can finally have someone have a politician that can claim they reduced the rediculously large size of a bureaucratic, inefficient, politically biased, corrupt, and largely inept government and be right about it. And all we would need is for Trump to be elected!

If you needed more proof our government was not serving us citizens, shit like this should leave you with no doubt that Leviathan could stand to shed some of the bloat. Yeah, I know that Trump’s election would only remove 25% of its size 9if these shitbags actually were kind enough to keep their word), and I personally would prefer to see at least half of it, if not more, go up in smoke. I wonder if these idiots would also move to Canada and do the country a double service!

If you didn’t know that it was pretend, then stuff like this should clarify it

Never forget that the left is about tyranny. Sure they love to pretend to like democracy, but that is when things go their way. As soon as that doesn’t happen, then you get stuff like this (which was previously titled like this):

Since British voters elected on Thursday to leave the European Union, signs have quickly emerged of the flaws in holding a referendum on such a messy, massive, far-reaching decision.

Politicians responsible for explaining what’s at stake have admitted they may have fudged some of the consequences. Nigel Farage, leader of the U.K. Independence Party, acknowledged Friday merely an hour after the election was called that one of the Leave campaign’s key promises to voters was inaccurate. Brexit backers pledged that money the U.K. currently sends to the E.U. — supposedly £350 million ($462 million) a week — would go to the country’s national health system instead. Former London mayor Boris Johnson even drove around Britain in a bus blaring that message.

On Friday, Farage called that claim a “mistake.” (Kudos to the incredulous TV reporter who then followed up: “Do you think there are other things people will wake up this morning and find out aren’t going to happen as a result of voting this way?”)

Oh, the article goes on to pretend these scumbag tyrannical leftists have a good reason to say that in general the unwashed masses that these masters are sure are not as smart as they are (reference here, shouldn’t be allowed to make choices the globalist leftist movement doesn’t like, but that’s bullshit. Most of the negative consequences we are seeing to this exit vote are simply retaliatory measures by pissed nanny staters that want to punish the plebes for daring to defy their aristocracy’s hold on power.

The grand message here by the political aristocracy and their scumbag lackeys in the media is that these plebes that voted “No” know not what’s better for them, unlike the political globalist masters. You fucking inbred morons are motivated by the usual nefarious reasons – racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, and so on – while they, the enlightened masters, see beyond all that. The fact that the voters point out they basically decided these masters had gotten too corrupt and felt no accountability to the people they represented is just pap. Democracy is doing what the marxist-globalist left wants. Don’t take my word for it:

All of this was, perhaps, predictable, as some political scientists and historians have warned that a simple yes-or-no public referendum can be a terrible way to make a decision with such complex repercussions. The process looks like direct democracy in its purest form, and it was celebrated as such by many Leave campaigners after the vote. But David A. Bell, a Princeton historian writing in The New Republic four years ago as Greece was preparing for a referendum on its bailout, argues that the result of referendums is much more often anti-democratic.

Methinks these people don’t realize the actual meaning of what the word democracy means. It simply is the rule of the masses, the decision they make being good or not according to whomever, having no impact on that choice. Democracy can be just as tyrannical as anything else, but never as tyrannical as what a ruling class that holds disdain for the people it rules and simply makes decisions that primarily benefit that ruling class way too often at the expense of the masses, which is why the forefathers of the US opted for a Representative Republic. Making a choice that the marxist-globalist left dislikes, for whatever reason and irrespective of whatever justification that the anyone would want to present as justification for claiming otherwise, doesn’t make that vote undemocratic as these mouth pieces of the tyrannical leftist cabal want you to believe. If they had “miscounted” the vote, like they did or continue to do in the greatest bastions of practical implementations of the systems of government favored by the left, or just outright disregarded the outcome of such a vote, which is exactly what I see the anti-brexit types are planning to do, then we would have something that is undemocratic.

The whole feel of this idiotic article is that the people that voted against what their masters and betters want, just don’t know what’s good for them. And the orchestrated campaign to cause as much pain as possible to all, the intended consequence being to make sure that nobody does anything like this again, as well as the call for a do-over are really what one could potentially label undemocratic. Basically we have another famous “Too big to fail” moment, like we had back in 2008, when the wholly rotten and totally broken US homeownership lending industry regulated to push perverse incentives that defied the laws of economics and human nature, going on here too. Do not defy the masters in Brussels and their plans, or else.

The globalists have corrupted the idea of a globalized planet brought together by economic and human interest by creating bloated beasts that rob the people of their freedoms and simply serve to enrich the political masters and the few they allow to come along, and are screwing us all over. People shouldn’t be deciding things simply on how much free shit the masters promise them, always shit taken from others, and those that are being fleeced shouldn’t be villainized when they point out that their masters have not just failed them, but are ripping them off and fucking them over. Have no doubt that this vote, despite of the stories being told now, was one to protest the disconnected masters and the fact that they no longer even care to pretend they hold the very people they are supposed to be serving in contempt. And this rebellion against their will and direction, by what these masters see as uneducated morons that are beneath them, is what pisses these scumbags in power the most.

Study makes the wrong conclusion.

I was quite baffled when I saw the title for a study posted on science daily that reported that “Skepticism about climate change may be linked to concerns about economy” because while I am certain that in good economic times people are less resistant to government fleecing, I still have a hard time believing people would buy the AGW lies. from the article I see the following declaration:

Americans may be more likely to accept the scientific evidence of human-caused climate change and its potentially devastating effects if they believe the economy is strong and stable, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

I could not fathom any study that would produce these results, and immediately suspected some kind of bullshit. My first inclination was that they very likely had loaded questions designed to illicit responses that would allow them to make this ludicrous claim. After all, there is a historical precedent that most people are willing to tolerate a heavier hand from Uncle Sam, the one going straight into their pockets where they keep their money, when their own income and potential for income looks good. I can see a study rigged to use that mechanism to make this idiotic claim that resistance to this nonsense and the political agenda is economic, but I wanted details, so I decided to take a closer look at the article, and the answer was right there. This was a bunch of bullshit wrapped in pretty paper to sell another lie. let’s start with this:

In an experiment conducted online, 187 Americans ranging from 18 to 70 years old watched a newscast with skeptical commentary about a NASA documentary on climate change. Participants who more enthusiastically supported the capitalist system were more dubious about climate change, and they misremembered facts from the newscast about the severity of climate change. Conversely, participants who were more critical of the capitalist system and more interested in social change recalled the information about climate change as being even more severe than the facts that were presented.

So first off, let me point out that the “mischaracterization” made by this idiot author about how supporters of the capitalist system were more likely to “misremember facts” or “not grasp the severity of the problem”, was nothing but his biased attempt to discredit people that pointed out what they were shown was a pile of bullshit. The likely scenario is that these people, less ruled by fucking feelings, pointed out that this cult is based on a well orchestrated campaign of falsehoods, flawed models and systems, manipulation of the facts and data to create a desired results, a peer review circle jerk, the demonization of anyone not willing to let them get away with this shit, and that not a single one of the horribly exaggerated effects have come to pass, isn’t “misremembering” or “not seeing the gravity of the situation”, but pointing out why this thing is a scam. Cultists don’t like that.

I also am not surprised people that saw the inherent value of the capitalist system were less prone to bullshit than their collectivist counterparts, because it has always been obvious to me that collectivists tend to be ruled by emotion and emotional appeal. Show a bunch of collectivist twits a fictional piece like Al Gore’s idiotic movie, hilariously titled “An inconvenient truth” of all things, that proposes draconian collectivism to deal with the coming apocalypse, and one shouldn’t be surprised these twits gobble up that shit sandwich either.

Anyway, back to the point here. The study, as practically every one of these pro AGW propaganda pieces tends to do, made a totally wrong conclusion from what they saw. The conclusion they should have made was that people inclined to believe the unwashed masses have a right to use government force to steal from the productive to benefit themselves are far more likely to buy a pack of lies when it pushes their agenda, while those that don’t buy theft by government and totalitarianism as good, are far less likely to fall for that bullshit.

Next we get the following doozy:

In another experiment, with 57 college students, participants were divided into two groups: One read a statement that the federal government had very broad power to influence the economy and the availability of jobs; the other, a statement that the government’s power was limited. The participants then read a news article that recounted some errors that were inadvertently included in a scientific report on climate change. Participants who thought the economy had a strong influence on their lives were more skeptical about climate change and were less likely to remember facts from the news article about the severity of climate change.

In a third experiment, with 203 college students, one group listened to a podcast that reported the U.S. economy had recovered from the recession, another group heard the recession was continuing, and a control group didn’t hear any podcast. All of the participants then watched a NASA documentary about scientific evidence of climate change before completing a survey about their support for the current U.S. economic system. Participants who more strongly endorsed the legitimacy of the economic system were more likely to believe in the severity of climate change only when they thought the economy was strong and stable.

Let me start by pointing out that when you pick a bunch of college students that are not in engineering, math, physics, chemistry, medicine, accounting, or something that actually involves not just regurgitating bullshit liberal dogma, for their opinion on things scientific, you shouldn’t be surprised to see the stupidity the experimenters did. I am sorry, but “Studies” or “Poli Sci” majors are neither hard science types nor – yes it is my opinion – really learning anything of value outside an artificial world created by the grand collectivist machine. They are a plague on the universe. I should have probably at the point of the realization how unscientific this scientifc study was, just moved on to something less brain damaging than this idiocy, but I couldn’t pass the opportunity to showcase what we are dealing with here.

In the first example, where they used some college students that were likely some 7 year geniuses of the humanities fields, we should begin with the fact that nobody with any common sense would buy the idiocy that government, by its very nature, has any form of control on economic activity, other than to impede, degrade, or piss away tons of tax payer dollars on it. But it remains baffling to me that this experiment led to the conclusion that good economic metrics influence people to dismiss the AGW bullshit. Again, I see that the correlation here isn’t faith in good economic times over AGW dystopia as much as how much more inclined someone was to accept the AGW nonsense as gospel if they lacked a solid grasp of economics and the impact of government on that activity.

If anything, the third experiment shows that the AGW cult is bull. Believers are far more likely to endorse the agenda while they felt they had little to lose and a lot to gain from the wealth transfer agenda behind the AGW movement. But as happens in real life, as soon as things got good for them, they were far likely to want that wealth transfer. Seriously, if you take a look at the supporters of Bernie Sanders and then at the supporters of Donald Trump, the big difference is the fact that the Sanders camp is comprised of people that are in deep debt and are looking for someone to bail them out (lots of jobless humanities students with big loan debt), while the other camp lacks that crowd.

These experiments should have concluded that collectivist are far more likely to like collectivist agendas when they gain from them, and much less likely to do anything but pay lip service to them when they find out they will foot the bill. Also that non-collectivists will focus on the reality of economics and human nature over some apocalyptic fantasies collectivists hope will convince people to let them fuck us all over.

This is what Bernie’s America will end up looking like

Despite the fact that it looks like the ‘gimme free shit party’ is not doing well with voter turnout, there are a lot of people that are backing donkey candidate Bernie Sanders, a man that never held a real job in his life (his first full time job was one working in government and happened when he was 40), and whom seems angry at the world because he never got what he feels he was due. Like Obama, the community organizer, and for that matter that criminal Clinton, Bernie is a man of no real accomplishments, but at least unlike Obama and Hillary, he seems to not be a down right crime syndicate boss.

I suspect a lot of Bernie’s backers are donkeys that have some conscience and simply can’t make themselves vote for that criminal Clinton. But then, there are many people that are true believers in the wealth redistribution bullshit Bernie peddles too, despite the historical evidence that this shit always ends badly for the people that put it in practice. Collectivism doesn’t work when it goes beyond the family unit, and the reason is very simple, even if the people that espouse it don’t want to admit it: the jealousy and greed that makes this philosophy that advocates taking from others attractive also blinds the followers to the fact that the leaders that promise to do this for them simply are looking to replace the existing haves, and will not really worry much about the “have nots” once they do so. From the USSR, to communist China to North Korea, Cuba or any other of the failed shit, it always ends bad. Sure the marxist backing Bernie will point to Europe, and especially Sweden, as their models, but they are not being honest when they do so. Europe, because of the wealth and mediocre collectivist leadership it has had, has not yet completed the full transition to what always comes from this dark ideology.

Want a look at the end result? Well, take a good look at what is happening in Venezuela or for that matter to Brazil, yeah Brazil, countries that have let this ideology run its course. One went super totalitarian, while the other is almost there. Shit, keep an eye on our neighbor to the north. I have a feeling they are going to be doing some real stupid shit that will hurt them real bad in the next few years, all in the name of social justice or whatever. And Europe, unfortunately for the Europeans, because of the corruption in Brussels and despite the many changes being made to delay the inevitable, will run out of other people’s money sooner than later, as well. Of course this will not dissuade people that feel they have a right to what others have – especially when they justify that right by claiming the others got what they have through nefarious means – from feeling that they will go along as long as the getting is good. To them having the whole thing burn down seems like justice, I guess.